Forages, Grazing, and Supplementation –Making it Work

Forages, Grazing, and Supplementation – Making it Work

65th UF/IFAS Beef Cattle Short CourseGainesville, FL

Kim Mullenix, Ph.D.Assistant Professor/Extension Specialist

Beef Cattle SystemsAuburn University

May 5, 2016

Shifting the Focus to Efficiency

Prevatt, UF/IFAS RCREC, 2016

Focus on Efficiency“You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure”

• Defined: Inputs needed to produced the desired output

• Tangible factors that can be tracked over time

Common Cow Measures• Cow body condition

score

• Reproductive efficiency– lbs weaning weight per

cow exposed

• Feed efficiency– Feed-to-gain ratio– Residual feed intake

Measures of Forage Production Efficiency

Forage Production (lb per acre)

Grazing days per year

Pounds of beef production per acre

Forages and Grazing ManagementImproving Productivity – Amount of Quality Forage

Produced Per Unit Land Area

• Fertility

• Pasture Stand Health Indicators

• Variety Selection

Fertility An Input Cost with a Measurable Return

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Apr

-11

Jul-1

1O

ct-1

1Ja

n-12

Apr

-12

Jul-1

2O

ct-1

2Ja

n-13

Apr

-13

Jul-1

3O

ct-1

3Ja

n-14

Apr

-14

Jul-1

4O

ct-1

4Ja

n-15

Apr

-15

Jul-1

5O

ct-1

5

$ pe

r ton

UreaTSPKCl

Five Year Trend, indexmundi.com

Relationship between fertility and forage production (lb DM/acre)

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

50 100 200 400

Bah

iagr

ass

Dry

Mat

ter Y

ield

(lb

DM

/acr

e)

Nitrogen application rate (lb N/acre)

Burton et al,, 1997

• What is an economical rate?

• Balance of N-P-K needs

• Greater return of nutrients in grazed ecosystems vs. hay production

Fertility – Grazed Ecosystems

Up to 70% of nutrients consumed may be

returned to the pasture system

N, P, and K

N and K– urineN and P – dung

Haynes and Williams, 1993; Mathews et al., 1996; Franzluebbers et al., 2004

FertilityHow Does it Improve Efficiency?

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2011

Her

bage

Acc

umul

atio

n, lb

DM

/acr

e

ArgentinePensacolaTifton 9UF Riata

Vendramini et al., 2013

- 55 lb N/acre

- Spring vs. fall growth

- Grazed every 4 wk – 50% greater herbage accumulation

When combined with improved grazing methods, low rates of fertility

are beneficial for the forage production system



• Fertility



Pasture Stand Health

• Measure of desirable forage production in the current system

• Take a walk, or stop and smell the roses!

• Actual vs. perceived

Evaluate:

1. What is the forage base I am working with?

2. What is the percent of desirable species in the stand?• Grass• Legumes• Weeds• Bare ground

3. Based on this, what can be done to improve the stand?

Pasture Stand Health Checklist

Pasture Stand Health How Does it Improve Efficiency?

Visual appraisal

Start with soils

Secondary FactorsIdentifies pastures that need renovation, rest,

etc. – increasing potential pounds of forage per acre produced



• Fertility



Variety Selection• Understand the forage

base and how this relates to your production goals• 30 cows vs. 1,000 cows

• Desirable forage characteristics:– Yield, nutritive value,

persistence, disease resistance, cold tolerance

Variety Selection How Does it Improve Efficiency?

April May June July Aug Sept Oct

UF RiataTifton 9ArgentinePensacola

Adapted from Vendramini et al., 2013

Mon

tlyhe

rbag

e ac

cum

ulat

ion

(lbD

M/a

cre)

Variety SelectionHow Does it Improve Efficiency?

• Limpograss(Hemarthria sp.)– UF/IFAS

release of two new varieties since 2014

• KenHy and GibTuck

YearLimpograss

hybrid 2012 2013

DM Yield (tons/acre/year)1 4.0 b 4.8 a

KenHy (4F) 5.2 a 5.8 aGibTuck (10) 5.7 a 5.1 a

32 4.1 b 3.5 b34 4.1b 2.5 b

Floralta 4.8 ab 3.6 b

Source: Wallau et al., in review; Gainesville, FL

Ability to increase pounds of forage production per acre

Growth distribution

Forages and Grazing ManagementImproving Grazing Season Length – More Grazing Days

Per Year, Less Hay Feeding Days

• Stocking Rate – Number of Animals Per Unit Land Area

• Alternative Systems – Grazing Days Per Unit Land Area

Forage Supply

Animal Demand

Stocking rate is a “supply and demand” relationship

Time

*This is where other grazing management considerations come into play (i.e. grazing frequency, grazing method, time on paddock)

What we need to know:

• Forage Supply – Plant Considerations– Forage mass– % Forage Utilization– Number of Acres to be Grazed


• Forage Demand – Animal Considerations– Average weight of animals to be grazed– Dry matter consumed per animal (% of body

weight per day)– Number of animals


• Time – Days on Pasture

*Assume 27 lb DM (65% TDN, 14% CP) per day for 1,200 lb cow producing 20 lbmilk/day (2.25% of BW)Assume 4 lb DM per day for growing calf (average 1.5% BW across grazing season) –Boggs et al. (1980)

Dry, pregnant cows (1,200 pounds)

Warm-season forage system

180 grazing days

Fall-calving

Forage Production, Use, and Stocking Rate are Related

Forage SupplyAnimal Demand

TimeStocking rate can be a reflection of

how well the forage program is working for you



• Stocking Rate – Number of Animals Per Unit Land Area

• Alternative Systems – Grazing Days Per Unit Land Area

Limpograss• 2012 and 2013• Cut to 8 inch height in

August• Fertilized with 45 or 90

lb N/acre – No N effect• Increasing herbage

mass with length of stockpiling period - 8, 12, or 16 wk

• Nutritive value – 50 to 58% TDN, 4% CP

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1 10 4F FloraltaH

erba

ge a

ccum

ulat

ion

(lbD

M p

er a

cre)

Line

*

Source: Wallau et al., 2015

Bahiagrass

900

2500

4500

6500

Her

bage

acc

umul

atio

n (lb

DM

/acr

e)

Source: Evers et al., 2004

Bermudagrass

• Tifton 85 • Forage mass

– 4,700 lb DM/acre– 50 lb N/acre sufficient

• Nutritive value• Animal performance

– Maintained BCS of 5 until Jan.

Sampling Date CP, % TDN, %

Early-Nov 17 73Late-Nov 12 64

Dec 11 58Early-Jan 11 53Late-Jan 10 53Average 12 60

Table 1. Nutritive value of stockpiled Tifton 85 bermudagrass receiving different rates of N

fertilization.

Source: Holland et al., 2014

Economics

Holland et al., 2014





Reasons for Supplementation Programs

• Survival of livestock• Increase level of production• Improve reproductive performance• Overall objective is to increase intake of

digestible energy or some other nutrient

Sollenberger, 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Poun

ds o

f TD

N p

er d

ay

(lb/d

ay)

Peak milk production

Weaning

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Months Since

Calving

Strategic SupplementationDetermine nutrient requirements

1,200 lbcow

Fall calving system

Strategic SupplementationEstimate the amount of nutrients received from the forage

base

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

01020304050607080

Oct 24 Nov 28 Dec 13 Jan 16

% li

gnin

% d

iges

tibili

ty

IVDMD PED PDNDF ADL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

01020304050607080

Nov 11 Nov 25 Jan 7 Jan 21

% li

gnin

% d

iges

tibili

ty

IVDMD PED PDNDF ADL

20132012

Stockpiled Tifton 85 bermudagrass

Source: Sechler, 2016

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Poun

ds o

f TD

N p

er d

ay

(lb/d

ay)

Peak milk production

Weaning

Stockpiled limpograss

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Strategic SupplementationDetermine where deficiencies exist

1,200 lbcow

Stockpiled limpograss

8 to 10 wkaccumulation

50 to 59% TDN

Sources TDN, % CP, % $/ton $/pound TDNSoybean hulls 78 12 130 0.09Corn gluten feed

85 25 150 0.10

Dried distiller’s grains w/ solubles

85 30 220 0.13

Whole cottonseed

90 24 245 0.15

Corn 90 8 175 0.10

Alabama Weekly Feedstuff/Production Cost Report, May 2, 2016

Strategic SupplementationEstimating needs on a cost per pound of nutrient

basis







• Fertility– Nutrient returned vs. applied

• Pasture Stand Health Indicators– Visual assessment and renovation

• Variety Selection– Incorporation of improved varieties based on

production goals



• Stocking Rate – Number of Animals Per Unit Land Area– Insight into the current forage production

program

• Alternative Systems – Grazing Days Per Unit Land Area– Intensifying use of an area to improve

efficiency

Final Thoughts

Nutrition

Reproduction

Health

Genetics

Economics

Forages

Efficiency

For more information, visit:

@ACESBeef

facebook.com/alabamabeefsystems

Website

www.alabamabeefsystems.comwww.secattleadvisor.com

[email protected]

Forages, Grazing, and Supplementation –Making it Work

Documents